Quote:
Originally Posted by JSWolf
1. Yes there will always be classics. Will the moldy oldies still be called classics? I hope not as the older they get, the less relevant they become.
|
Classics are timeless and you can’t be more relevant than that. But if we’re talking in practical terms, just how relevant can a tale of a poor wizardry school (and Hogwarts really is a rotten school) be?
Quote:
|
2. I don't consider some of the "classics" to be great literature.I think a book doesn't have to be great literature to be a classic. If that was the case, then some of those old classics would ne be able to be called classic.
|
Perhaps not great literature, but good, and groundbreaking in some respect. As someone noted above, Sherlock Holmes isn’t great literature.
Quote:
|
I would not compare Harry Potter to those old books as they don't compare.Harry Potter is very different. If? Harry Potter already is a classic.Classics don't have to be old books. There are modern classics and instant classics.
|
Flatly impossible. Now you’ve gone from thinking that books you don’t like are rubbish no matter the general reaction, to thinking you can redefine words at will. And what’s the point? If classic is going to mean what you alone say it means, why do you care about the label? But I suspect you’re only doing it to annoy, because you know it teases. (Lewis Carroll. Classic.)